Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the underlying REST endpoint and notes quantity_sold is returned. Beyond that it says nothing about pagination semantics, permission requirements, or result limits, so it adds only modest context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Dense and front-loaded: one sentence covers the resource, an output field, and the scope branches, followed by a compact endpoint reference. Slight redundancy with the schema's scope description, but no wasted padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an 8-parameter, no-output-schema list tool, the description plus a fully documented schema gives an agent enough to call it correctly, and the quantity_sold mention hints at the return payload. Missing explicit guidance on pagination flow and relationship to sibling discount tools keeps it short of 5.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters, including the mutual exclusion of code/code_filter and the event_id requirement. The description's scope explanation largely restates the schema's own scope description, adding little beyond it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('an organization's discounts and access codes') and adds a return-value hint ('with quantity_sold'). It does not name the sibling tools it complements (create_discount, update_discount), so sibling differentiation is only implicit via the 'search' verb.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explains the scope variants ('event needs event_id', 'multi_events = cross-event', 'user = all of the organization's'), which guides parameter choice, but never states when to use this tool versus create_discount/update_discount or what prerequisites exist beyond event_id. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.